Tuesday, October 02, 2012

While President Barack Obama and Mitt Romney bone up in Nevada and Colorado for Wednesday’s opening debate, back in the nation’s capital attention is split between the hard-fought presidential race and baseball playoffs.

The Nationals won the first division baseball championship for a Washington team since 1933 by clinching the National League East race Monday night.

Washington, D.C., has the only ballpark where so many Cabinet members, politicians and other luminaries routinely gather and where fans now are openly rooting for a particular president — one who served more than a century ago, Theodore Roosevelt.

Reader Comments and Retorts

Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.

Yeah, I've tried, but the lefties here just don't care about a bunch of dead Mexicans.

Yes, it is totally the Left that does not care about Mexicans (dead or otherwise). Or your whole story is suspect and the chain of causaility you have build it weak and we reject your premise and conclusion. Whichever.

That's a sensible piece, in some alternate universe where Obama didn't go to the U.N. and mention the YouTube video six times.

Because when dealing with diplomacy, with other nations and other cultures in a very public setting, the most important thing is to be brutally honest and straightforward. And if you aren't, if you try to accomodate their view or otherwise engage in ... well diplomacy you are in fact histories greatest monster and we should evaluate everything in light of what you said publically to those other nations.

Because when dealing with diplomacy, with other nations and other cultures in a very public setting, the most important thing is to be brutally honest and straightforward. And if you aren't, if you try to accomodate their view or otherwise engage in ... well diplomacy you are in fact histories greatest monster and we should evaluate everything in light of what you said publically to those other nations.

Yeah, it's much better to stand up and lie, thus insulting everyone's intelligence and requiring a subsequent mea culpa by you and your secretary of state.

Obama knew Benghazi wasn't triggered by the YouTube video and the people in Libya knew it wasn't triggered by the YouTube video, so Obama's U.N. speech was only brilliant in the minds of Obama Delusionists.

Well, the issue there was "judgment on the job." On a private level, what Clinton does with his dick is between him, his wife, and the other participant(s). But there are things in any job that are not illegal in any case, and immoral depending on one's POV, but things that you shouldn't do since they are incompatible with the job.

That can be said about any job, and the alpha in any job always thinks, to a lesser or greater degree, that he can transcend the taboos--especially when everyone else is doing the same. Moreover, screwing women isn't incompatible with any job. Looking at it this way is like blaming Dawkins and the New Atheists for calling out the religious ######## and the moderate apologists. One's right and one's not. Reverting to some protocol involving courtesy, custom and deference just lets those who are wrong stack the deck.

The odd thing about Obama (for me anyway) is I keep thinking he is not very good at some parts of his job, and then he keeps being successful. Four years of being in office, and every timehe looked bozed in, a few weeks later he accomplished what he wanted (of course I wanted some different things than him, but he did seem to get what he wanted. He might have been narrowcasting what he wanted to what was possible also).

Clinton was maybe a better "natural politician" and all that but ignoring the economy* the accomplishments of Obama in 4 years stacks up better than Clinton's 8 years (from my biased liberal perspective). Specifically Clinton did a bunch of small bore stuff and some stuff I am not fond of (Hi DOMA!) that was likely foisted on him with occasional good stuff. Obama has bigger and better gets.

* Of course the economy is a BFD. How much of that, or any of this stuff, is controlled or influenced by the President is an open question. Still Clinton will always get mad props for his economy and Obama will get dinged for his, and fair or not that is life.

The disadvantage of having a workaholic do anything is that they love working so much that time isn't a limiter for them and they may be less focused on finishing their particular project. Whereas someone who wants to get home to the family is more likely to cut to the chase and focus on the goal so they can be done.

In happier news, Romney is up to a 52-45 lead in Gallup's LV poll, and +0.7 in the RCP. If Obama won the debate, it's not showing up in the numbers yet.

According to Karl Rove, no presidential candidate has ever been at or over 50 in the Gallup LV in mid-October and lost. (Admittedly, Gallup has had a strange polling year, but it's an interesting piece of trivia nonetheless.)

It was that he got caught. And then stupidly lied about it. Fortunately the R team went way to far on it and the public moved on. If you look at the polling from the time it was clear the public mostly did not care that much about the whole thing (other than as a purient story of course).

That's almost entirely true, and it almost entirely misses the point. Who was wrong here to begin with? Clinton in doing what he did, or those guys in making of it what they did? You choose.

If it wouldn't have been this, it would have been something else, because that was the nature of the opposition--and it still is. Saying ou have to meet its standards, which aren't stgandards but expediencies, is Playing into their hands. It's allowing them to be tghe house in a game of roulette.

Yeah, it's much better to stand up and lie, thus insulting everyone's intelligence and requiring a subsequent mea culpa by you and your secretary of state.

Obama knew Benghazi wasn't triggered by the YouTube video and the people in Libya knew it wasn't triggered by the YouTube video, so Obama's U.N. speech was only brilliant in the minds of Obama Delusionists.

Pretty much all economic 'expansion' post-Reagan has been bubble driven. That is to say, there has been no real economic growth, only bubbles in various industries which have siphoned resources out of the middle class and into the upper class's coffers.

Yeah, it's much better to stand up and lie, thus insulting everyone's intelligence and requiring a subsequent mea culpa by you and your secretary of state.

Obama knew Benghazi wasn't triggered by the YouTube video and the people in Libya knew it wasn't triggered by the YouTube video, so Obama's U.N. speech was only brilliant in the minds of Obama Delusionists.

Joe you are new to this whole diplomacy thing, right?

Diplomacy is very often lies, even lies when everyone in the room knows you are lying. It means saying something (like some crappy film) has most significance than it really does because your audience has concerns (interest, what have you) in said crappy film. Many of the people in the Muslim world were and are concerned about the film, so when talking to the UN you talk about the film way more than it deserves. Even if you have to lie. because this is diplomacy it is not your high school paper on the incident.

Of course if Obama had used lies, you know blew them way out of proportion (100x what he did) and used them as a pretext for war then it would have been awesome according to you. Using harmless dissembling in the service of some aim other than war - near impeachible offense.

That's almost entirely true, and it almost entirely misses the point. Who was wrong here to begin with? Clinton in doing what he did, or those guys in making of it what they did? You choose.

It can't be both to differing degrees? Clinton had a mild transgression after which he made some mistakes in handling it. The opposition (which as you said was determind to find something) then went nuts in a really pathetic showing.

I am not saying you have to meet anyone's standards, merely relaying what happened. No one is perfect, and those imperfections have impact. I am not saying the morals of the Washington elite, the opposition, or the public at large are correct, simply they do influence the shape of events in politics.

The reason Obama mentioned the video in the speech was because it was clearly a factor in the protests in Egypt and many other countries in the Middle East (even if it was not the cause of the attacks in Libya). Many countries were asking why the United States did not ban the video. Obama's statement was not "tossing the First Amendment in the shredder", but standing up for it.

I know there are some who ask why we don’t just ban such a video. The answer is enshrined in our laws: our Constitution protects the right to practice free speech. Here in the United States, countless publications provoke offense. Like me, the majority of Americans are Christian, and yet we do not ban blasphemy against our most sacred beliefs. Moreover, as President of our country, and Commander-in-Chief of our military, I accept that people are going to call me awful things every day, and I will always defend their right to do so. Americans have fought and died around the globe to protect the right of all people to express their views – even views that we disagree with.

We do so not because we support hateful speech, but because our Founders understood that without such protections, the capacity of each individual to express their own views, and practice their own faith, may be threatened. We do so because in a diverse society, efforts to restrict speech can become a tool to silence critics, or oppress minorities. We do so because given the power of faith in our lives, and the passion that religious differences can inflame, the strongest weapon against hateful speech is not repression, it is more speech – the voices of tolerance that rally against bigotry and blasphemy, and lift up the values of understanding and mutual respect.

And lies about four deaths. Yes talking about said crappy movie on YouTube really dishonored their memory (or something). If only he had evidence about "yellow cake" it would all be OK.

Seriously dude, you need to find something else to get worked up about. This one is not working out for you (IMO).

Actually, it does dishonor their memory to claim they died because of a YouTube video and not because the State Dept. had them working in a war-zone consulate that was protected only by four locals "armed" with batons and handcuffs.

Frankly, I believe it's absurd to blame Obama for the security of a consulate, but he threw that good will out the window when he spent weeks blaming the YouTube video instead of just admitting what everyone else knew to be true on Day 1 or Day 2. The State Dept.'s security service watched the attack in real time via video link. They knew there was no YouTube protest in Benghazi, and yet the administration lied about it for weeks, including sending Susan Rice on her now-infamous tour of the Sunday shows.

Actually, it does dishonor their memory to claim they died because of a YouTube video and not because the State Dept. had them working in a war-zone consulate that was protected only by four locals "armed" with batons and handcuffs.

Actually, it does dishonor their memory to claim they died because of a YouTube video and not because the State Dept. had them working in a war-zone consulate that was protected only by four locals "armed" with batons and handcuffs.

And the right place to have a discussion of Embassy security* and the cause of the deaths is in front of the UN? That's silly. The UN is for discussing issues of interest to the nations there, not an airing of exactly what happened.

And what about that 1st being tossed into the shredder? What part of the 1st did he "shred"?

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

* Don't forget the Obama administration asking for more money for security and being told to fly a kite by House Republicans.

* Don't forget the Obama administration asking for more money for security and being told to fly a kite by House Republicans.

This is embarrassing. When a budget gets cut, you reallocate resources to the highest priorities. Obama found money in the consular budget to give the French consulate full military protection, and it found money to send a fleet of Chevy Volts to consulates throughout Europe. The idea that Obama & Co. desperately wanted to secure the Benghazi consulate but just couldn't scrape together enough money to pay for a few more guards and a few guns is just silly. It's embarrassing for people to even make such a claim.

Obama flies in and out of manhattan to the heliport right outside my office building, but I've never had an office facing the heliport so i've never watched him. Just now, a friend had me come to her office and bring my binoculars, which i had in the office for a trip I'm going on. You could clearly see Obama - remarkably so.
He seemed, in the 60 seconds I was watching him, like a very nice, ordinary guy; he got out of the chopper, stretched his arms out like to say "what a beautiful day", took his jacket off and tossed it over his shoulder, said hi to the secret service guy, turned into the sun and stretched his arms again, then an aid sort of tapped him on the shoulder and he turned and walked over to his limo.

And what about that 1st being tossed into the shredder? What part of the 1st did he "shred"?

No answer Joe? Was it just a throw away line? If so I'll move along, but I have heard similar things in the past and I am really interested in how anyone could think or say such an obviously incorrect thing with any kind of seriousness.

When a budget gets cut, you reallocate resources to the highest priorities.

And if they had had more money they could have maybe saved four lives. But the House Republicans hate government hate spending money, which is their right, but there are consequences. You are right, that is kind of embarrassing, and sad.

This is embarrassing. When a budget gets cut, you reallocate resources to the highest priorities. Obama found money in the consular budget to give the French consulate full military protection, and it found money to send a fleet of Chevy Volts to consulates throughout Europe. The idea that Obama & Co. desperately wanted to secure the Benghazi consulate but just couldn't scrape together enough money to pay for a few more guards and a few guns is just silly. It's embarrassing for people to even make such a claim.

You are correct that when things get cut you have to adjust but that doesn't mean that cracks don't appear. In case you've never actually worked on a budget before they don't simply hand you a check and say do with it what you want for the rest of the year.

And what about that 1st being tossed into the shredder? What part of the 1st did he "shred"?

No answer Joe? Was it just a throw away line? If so I'll move along, but I have heard similar things in the past and I am really interested in how anyone could think or say such an obviously incorrect thing with any kind of seriousness.

You might want to breathe into a paper bag or something. It seems like you're getting a little worked up.

Obama tossed the First Amendment in the shredder when he "asked" -- wink, wink -- Google to "review" the video.

And if they had had more money they could have maybe saved four lives. But the House Republicans hate government hate spending money, which is their right, but there are consequences. You are right, that is kind of embarrassing, and sad.

This is pathetic. I'm embarrassed for you right now.

The idea that Chevy Volts for the consulate in Vienna was a higher-priority expenditure of scarce budgetary dollars than providing armed guards to a consulate in a war zone is so dumb that I didn't think even a liberal would try to make it. But, alas, I was wrong.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Obama tossed the First Amendment in the shredder when he "asked" -- wink, wink -- Google to "review" the video.

Except for the part where nothing in the first amendment has anything to do with what President Obama did. What law did Obama/Congress pass? What law did they break? How did this shred anything?

The whole Chevy Volt canard very much sounds like an anti-welfare queen screed - "and then she used food stamps to pay for ice cream. Must be nice to get free ice cream." The whole thing is an obvious attempt to gin up outrage, the fact that hybrid cars are used in this is a very nice touch by the way, kind of ties in with blackening the "green" movement and everything.

Pretty simple though. Obama wanted more money for security. Was told no. Security failed. The same people that said no to more money blame it entirely on the guy who wanted more money for security. Everything else is just trying to misdirect attention. And no I am not saying it would not have happened if the money had been forthcoming - that is not knowable. But we do know what did happen without it.

Pretty simple though. Obama wanted more money for security. Was told no. Security failed. The same people that said no to more money blame it entirely on the guy who wanted more money for security. Everything else is just trying to misdirect attention. And no I am not saying it would not have happened if the money had been forthcoming - that is not knowable. But we do know what did happen without it.

I'm not going to keep going in circles here, because your position is too dumb to take seriously.

I don't know how things operate in the Bitter Mouse household, but out here in the real world, people are forced to prioritize the use of scarce resources. Unfortunately for Amb. Stevens & Co., the Obama State Dept. thought buying Chevy Volts for the European consulates was a higher priority than providing basic security for our Benghazi consulate. Anyone with some basic common sense would disagree with this perversion of basic priorities, but common sense seems to be in short supply these days, especially when government is involved.

But anyway, don't worry: As Obama has said, Benghazi was just a "bump in the road" — a bump those new Chevy Volts presumably can drive right over.

I'm not going to keep going in circles here, because your position is too dumb to take seriously.

So it is pretty obvious you've never actually worked on putting together a budget or had to operate under one. The decision wasn't more armed guards in Libya or Chevy Volts for Europe. That isn't how budgets work.

And in Joe K world there are only two places to spend money. Hybrid Cars (Scary Green Technology!) or security for the only consulate in the entire world - Benghazi. There were no other choices, no other options, no other consulates. There is no evaluation of the relative importance of our embassies in Europe (Pretty important as it turns out) versus spreading that (very small amount) of money across all the consultates in the world. Or does it happen that benghazi is the only consulate in the world needing more security? Would the more-evil-than-Satan hybrid cars have paid for every consulate to have its security to be upgraded? Was that money even enough to pay for one consulate to be upgraded? Was/is benghazi the most insecure and strategic consulate in the world? Do you think the Republican House was right to deny the money? Should they refuse further money for consular security?

Your position is silly and what is more you know it.

And yes I am still hoping to hear how Obama talking to a private company about a video posted on servers around the world violates - SHREDS! - the first amendment.

EDIT: And it is sneaky how Joe has moved the conversation away from the UN speech (where the sub-thread started) once it was clear (again) there was nothing there into general budgeting and talking to Google. Crazy like a fox I say.

So it is pretty obvious you've never actually worked on putting together a budget or had to operate under one. The decision wasn't more armed guards in Libya or Chevy Volts for Europe. That isn't how budgets work.

So the Obama State Dept. isn't responsible for the budget the Obama State Dept. drew up and implemented?

***

Maybe we should all listen to what Chris Stevens' father says

LOL. If one of the other dead people's families says the opposite, then what?

And in Joe K world there are only two places to spend money. Hybrid Cars (Scary Green Technology!) or security for the only consulate in the entire world - Benghazi. There were no other choices, no other options, no other consulates. There is no evaluation of the relative importance of our embassies in Europe (Pretty important as it turns out) versus spreading that (very small amount) of money across all the consultates in the world. Or does it happen that benghazi is the only consulate in the world needing more security?

When the consulates in France and Belgium have more armed guards than the consulate in a war zone, there might be a flaw in the security assessments and budgetary decisions that were made.

When the consulates in France and Belgium have more armed guards than the consulate in a war zone, there might be a flaw in the security assessments and budgetary decisions that were made.

So no answer to the questions about scary hybrids and consulate security or shredding of the first amendment?

And if extemists attack a consulate in France, stripped of its security resources, who would be the first to parrot GOP talking points about how irresponsible it was to leave such a high visibility place so vulnerable?

"Look at the bombings and other terrorist acts that have taken place in Europe with its free and easy borders! They live in a fantasy land to allow that to happen. An attack in a minor consulate in a minor war torn country is one thing, but to allow it on French soil - outrage!"

Absentee and early voting data from nine states that are generally viewed as competitive at the presidential level show Democrats requesting and returning more absentee ballots than they did in 2008 in Florida and Iowa. And in Iowa, where in-person early voting has already begun, those numbers are also strong for Democrats.

In other states, the picture is too incomplete to be drawing too many broad conclusions at this point.

“There’s certainly something going in on these states where more Democrats are casting mail ballots than Republicans, at a comparable point in 2008,” said Michael McDonald, an early voting expert at George Mason University. “It’s happening in Florida … and it’s happening in Iowa.”

“There’s certainly something going in on these states where more Democrats are casting mail ballots than Republicans, at a comparable point in 2008,” said Michael McDonald, an early voting expert at George Mason University. “It’s happening in Florida … and it’s happening in Iowa.”

The GOP is targeting soft voters in the early period, while the Dems are simply trying to bank as many early votes as possible. Strategists on both sides have admitted as much.

Absentee and early voting data from nine states that are generally viewed as competitive at the presidential level show Democrats requesting and returning more absentee ballots than they did in 2008 in Florida and Iowa. And in Iowa, where in-person early voting has already begun, those numbers are also strong for Democrats.

In other states, the picture is too incomplete to be drawing too many broad conclusions at this point.

“There’s certainly something going in on these states where more Democrats are casting mail ballots than Republicans, at a comparable point in 2008,” said Michael McDonald, an early voting expert at George Mason University. “It’s happening in Florida … and it’s happening in Iowa.”

But, but, JoeK told us the numbers were going to be down and the enthusiasm wasn't there.

Except for how President Obama talking to Google shredded the first amendment.

If the State Dept. could find money for Chevy Volts, then it could find money for armed guards in Benghazi.

How much did the Volts cost? How much does enhancing security at a Consulate like Benghazi cost? How many Consulates need their security upgraded? How much did the Obama administration request that was cut out by the GOP House? (I bet $10,000 it was More $ than the couple of hybrids cost).

Really you are asserting it shred the first amendment. You are pretending a couple hybrids could pay for security for every consulate in the world that needs an upgrade. And you are ignoring this started with your assertions about Obama's UN speech, but there was nothing there about any of this so you abandoned that a while ago to segue into this nonsense.

And in Joe K world there are only two places to spend money. Hybrid Cars (Scary Green Technology!) or security for the only consulate in the entire world - Benghazi.

I think BitterM's got it right. In Joek's world, all government money for social programs goes to welfare queens, all family planning monies are for abortions, State Department money only goes to Volts, and everyone who votes for Democrats are lazy, black, Mexican, gay, or all of the above.

I think BitterM's got it right. In Joek's world, all government money for social programs goes to welfare queens, all family planning monies are for abortions, and everyone who votes for Democrats are lazy, black, Mexican, gay, or all of the above.

Welfare spending has grown substantially over the past four years, reaching $746 billion in 2011 — or more than Social Security, basic defense spending or any other single chunk of the federal government — according to a new memo by the Congressional Research Service.

The steady rise in welfare spending, which covers more than 80 programs primarily designed to help low-income Americans, got a big boost from the 2009 stimulus and has grown, albeit somewhat more slowly, in 2010 and 2011. One reason is that more people are qualifying in the weak economy, but the federal government also has broadened eligibility so that more people qualify for programs.

For the record welfare (and safety net programs) are suppossed to act in a counter cyclical fashion. It is a feature that they do this and provide economic stimulus automatically when needed and help cushion the blow from a bad economy.

And to a Mouse calling someone a squirrel is a compliment, rodents with fluffy tails are to be admired (They have much better PR than Rats and Mice do after all). The blind part was an insult and I feel bad about that though.

Hey I resemble that remark. And I just apologized, because I don't think insults are the way to go (before I read your post by the way). But that is the code I hold myself to, other people need to lookout for themselves. Joe K also has a code, he'll call a comment names but rarely if ever a person (and I respect that about him, BTW).

But you, I don't want you to ever change. It wouldn't be the same BTF without neck stabbings.

When BTF's resident escapee from the Fox News discussion boards calls your position too dumb to take seriously, you're winning.

If you spend big money on Chevy Volts but then cry poverty when people learn your war-zone consulate had less security than the consulate in Belgium, you deserve all the ridicule you receive.

***

For the record welfare (and safety net programs) are suppossed to act in a counter cyclical fashion. It is a feature that they do this and provide economic stimulus automatically when needed and help cushion the blow from a bad economy.

But if we're in the middle of a "huge recovery," as Michelle Obama claims, then shouldn't counter-cyclical forces have the welfare numbers trending down right now rather than trending higher?

For the record welfare (and safety net programs) are suppossed to act in a counter cyclical fashion. It is a feature that they do this and provide economic stimulus automatically when needed and help cushion the blow from a bad economy.

Some things are in front of the trends, some are spot on, and some lag. Recoveries are not "everything moves together all at once". And for the record, while there are hopeful signs, I am not on board with claiming a huge recovery. Sounds like a poitical statement and not economic.

Hopeful signs include housing and construction starts and the recent Gallup poll which showed increases in nemployment (decreases in unemployment? both? can't remember). The recent monetary announcements were a good sign to. Let's hope the economy does get better.

But if we're in the middle of a "huge recovery," as Michelle Obama claims, then the welfare numbers should be trending down right now rather than trending higher. That's how "counter-cyclical" trends are supposed to work.

Well, the article you linked to cites 2011 numbers for welfare. Since it is currently October, 2012, you should probably use more recent numbers to make that point.

Also, it looks like housing starts have gone up in September (compared with August). Perhaps most importantly, the number of permits given tracks with this, which supports that it is a real growth (as opposed to just statistical noise).

Nah, it was a long time ago (late 80s). I am not sure what they are teaching the punks these days, but it sounds like Micro Economics has become ascendent over Macro (which is a darn shame actually). From what I hear elegant mathematics and "foundational underpinnings" are more important than actually explaining what is happening in the real world at many grad schools.

Is that what you were referring to? Because your quote of Michelle Obama occured was reported on earlier this month. If you are arguing something else, you should say so. Because a cynic would say you were moving the goalposts after getting caught on the facts.

I actually went to a very "right wing" econ school (University of Illinois Chicago) so I learned all about Rational Expectations and other joyous bits in addition to some Keynesian (and Neo-Keynesian) economics.

I never liked Jiff. I am a crunchy peanut butter kind of mouse. Is Jiff the one (or a one) that adds all that sugar?

Is that what you were referring to? Because your quote of Michelle Obama occured was reported on earlier this month. If you are arguing something else, you should say so. Because a cynic would say you were moving the goalposts after getting caught on the facts.

Take your pick. "Recovery summer" was in 2010, Michelle Obama says we're in a "huge recovery" in 2012, and yet welfare spending is trending ever higher.

Comparing New Zealand food and British food really sets the bar pretty low on both sides.

Eh, most every place has at least a few foods that are awesome. New Zealand has really good mussels, killer meat pies, great dairy products, and some tasty desserts (ANZAC biscuits, Lamingtons, Pavlova). Great Britain has... um... pork pies. Those are pretty great. A proper cream tea is nothing to sneeze at either. Also, fried stuff. Everybody likes fried stuff.

Care to quote what he said on the subject during the debate Tuesday night? Or does that not fit the narrative you're being fed by the right-wing media machine?

What he said in the debate was one of the most dishonest statements ever uttered in a presidential debate. If not for Romney being flabbergasted by Obama's blatant dishonesty, Obama would have been creamed. Obama & Co. blamed the YouTube video for weeks after the Benghazi attack, and no amount of spin or revisionist history can change that inconvenient truth.

What he said in the debate was one of the most dishonest statements ever uttered in a presidential debate.

You apparently had Romney on mute during the first debate .

If not for Romney being flabbergasted by Obama's blatant dishonesty, Obama would have been creamed. Obama & Co. blamed the YouTube video for weeks after the Benghazi attack, and no amount of spin or revisionist history can change that inconvenient truth.

You're having a tough time following your own threads. Your post implied Obama expressed a lack of emotion on the consulate deaths. I'm asking you what he said specifically about his feelings on the killings during the debate. You can quote him on it, unless you think it'll mess up your story.

But I do love how the deaths of 4 Americans in Libya are enough to have you freaking the #### out over Obama and Chevy Volts, but during the Bush administration, the deaths of 4 Americas on foreign soil was light day in the battle for freedom . Were you on the intertubes screaming for a proper investigation of Pat Tillman's death? Or griping over the way Bush lied about the Jessica Lynch mission? Did you hold your government to account for the coordinated program of racist torture that took place at Abu Ghirab?

What he said in the debate was one of the most dishonest statements ever uttered in a presidential debate. If not for Romney being flabbergasted by Obama's blatant dishonesty, Obama would have been creamed.

Wait a minute here. We've all of us — including you — acknowledge that Romney's first debate performance was blatantly dishonest on every level. One could even argue that Obama being flabbergasted by Romney's blatant dishonesty then contributed to his loss. Now you're going to get high-and-mighty about something that's not even an actual lie?

And really, is there any evidence that Romney would have done better, or even different? Romney hasn't exhibited an iota of nuanced knowledge about the area. He's not running on it at all. There's no reason to think that the gang of folks who want to slash funding for overseas protection would have done anything different in Benghazi.

Take your pick. "Recovery summer" was in 2010, Michelle Obama says we're in a "huge recovery" in 2012, and yet welfare spending is trending ever higher.

Expect your facts don't support mocking Michelle Obama's quote. Your moving the goal posts because you got caught being fast and loose with the facts you used to support your argument. Just admit it and move on. You might gain some credibility.